Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Wasp Evolution Forgot

New research on an old, misidentified, fossil specimen reveals that the fig wasp has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years. In spite of dramatic climate shifts, and who knows what else, this millimeter long fig tree pollinator, and its fig tree companion, somehow managed to persist. While primitive primates somehow developed the human brain and consciousness in a geologically brief time window, the fig wasp managed to avoid evolutionary change over a much longer time period. It is yet another example of stasis in the biological world.

Fig wasps are so named because they have a complex and highly specific relationship with fig trees. There are about 800 species of fig trees, and each is pollinated by just one or two species of fig wasp which otherwise ignore the other fig trees species. That’s quite a feat that evolution pulled off—800 or so variations on a theme.

At one fig tree a wasp collects pollen and stores it in pockets on the underside of its body before flying to another fig tree (of the same species of course) where it pulls out the collected pollen and spreads it on the flower. It’s amazing what unguided mutations will do (no, natural selection doesn’t magically design intricate systems like this, it merely kills off the loser mutations).

And what’s also amazing is how, after implementing such dramatic and nuanced changes, evolution then comes to a screeching halt. It created species, and relationships between them, that fortuitously would not only survive climate shifts and tens of millions of years, but wouldn’t even call for any more change. That’s a good design.

183 comments:

Species maintain stability, in some cases for millions of years, despite the assaults of mutation and the pressures of selection, and then they disappear. The opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) is found throughout the American continent, where it climbs trees and is persecuted for the damage it wreaks on poultry. The female gives birth up to three times a year, each time with a litter of ten to eighteen. Fossil opossums from the Cretaceous (about 100 million years ago) appear to be no different from the chicken predator of today. Despite its great prolificacy and the extreme range of environments in which it is found, the species has remained faithful to itself. Another interesting case is that of the Lingula, a bivalve shellfish in the brachiopod phylum. Several species have remained virtually unchanged since the beginnings of multicellular animals about 550 million years ago. — (Giuseppe Sermonti 2005. Why Is A Fly Not A Horse? Pg 43, 49, 53)

Morphological changes in species track changes in the environment. If the environment changes drastically, morphologies can and have changed drastically to keep up. If the environment of a particular niche remains relatively stable, even for millions of years, the morphology of creatures in that niche can and have remained stable.

"Morphological changes in species track changes in the environment. If the environment changes drastically, morphologies can and have changed drastically to keep up. If the environment of a particular niche remains relatively stable, even for millions of years, the morphology of creatures in that niche can and have remained stable."

Detail for us how the environment of this wasp did not change while the environment for virtually everything else supposedly did.(And not...the wasp did not change therefore it's environment didn't...that's circular) I don't need 30 volumes. A paragraph or two will suffice.

Detail for us how the environment of this wasp did not change while the environment for virtually everything else supposedly did.(And not...the wasp did not change therefore it's environment didn't...that's circular) I don't need 30 volumes. A paragraph or two will suffice.

Fil, think. One can't prove a negative. That's logic 101.

Here is the abstract from the referenced paper

"Ancient fig wasps indicate at least 34 Myr of stasis in their mutualism with fig trees.

Abstract: Fig wasps and fig trees are mutually dependent, with each of the 800 or so species of fig trees (Ficus, Moraceae) typically pollinated by a single species of fig wasp (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae). Molecular evidence suggests that the relationship existed over 65 Ma, during the Cretaceous. Here, we record the discovery of the oldest known fossil fig wasps, from England, dated at 34 Ma. They possess pollen pockets that contain fossil Ficus pollen. The length of their ovipositors indicates that their host trees had a dioecious breeding system. Confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy reveal that the fossil female fig wasps, and more recent species from Miocene Dominican amber, display the same suite of anatomical characters associated with fig entry and pollen-carrying as modern species. The pollen is also typical of modern Ficus. No innovations in the relationship are discernible for the last tens of millions of years."

The biggest factor in the wasps' immediate environment is the fig trees, which the evidence shows have not changed noticibly over that time either. The wasps and fig trees have a symbiotic relationship, where each is dependent on the other for reproduction. Such symbiotic relationships often display what is known as mutualistic stability, where the stability of one member helps maintain the stability of the other, and vice versa.

Feel free to present evidence that the wasps or fig trees should have dramatically changed morphologies.

I understand the random mutations that are the forst step in evolution don't happen because of the environment. They are random. So if a mutation can occur that confers an advantage, that organism will out compete others and replace them even if the environment doesn't change. So evolution can happen even in a stable environment.

Yes, evolution happens in stable environments, but since the evolutionary changes are part of the environment, the environment also changes, although not necessarily by much. In fact, figs and fig wasps are an interesting example of a dynamic mutualistic relationship. Wasps are "tempted" to feed from the figs without doing the pollinating, which favors figs that "punish" wasps that don't stick to the "deal".

I understand the random mutations that are the forst step in evolution don't happen because of the environment. They are random. So if a mutation can occur that confers an advantage, that organism will out compete others and replace them even if the environment doesn't change. So evolution can happen even in a stable environment.

That does happen at first when a changing environment stabilizes. Then what happens is evolution drives the population to a local optimum (also called a fitness peak) in the fitness landscape. Once the population is at the local peak there are very few mutations that give a statistically significant improvement (i.e there are few ways to go uphill further but lots of way down). As long as the environment doesn't change, natural selection will work to keep the population at the optimum level. When the environment does change the population will no longer be at the optimum, and the process of moving the population to the next optimum begins again.

Like all concepts, fitness landscapes exist in people's heads. What matters is whether a concept is a useful model of nature. Biologists and medical scientists find it useful. (A PubMed search for the term yields 350 references, many dealing with epidemiological issues of profound importance to human health.)

Let's remember that this is a fossil - gross morphological features of a fossilised fig wasp resembles the features of an extant fig wasp.

Perhaps, as the relationship between wasp and fig tree is rather close, it is not enormously surprising that its gross morphology has remained similar.

This is not to say that "evolution" has come to a "screeching halt". After all, Cornelius notes there are hundreds of species of fig wasp pollinating hundreds of species of fig. Rather than being "forgotten" by evolution, this appears to demonstrate that evolution has indeed continued, while weeding out deleterious morphological changes on the scale that might be apparent in the fossil record.

Of course, the alternative hypothesis is that the Creater/Designer happens to be particularly enamoured with wasps, or disproportionately fond of figs.

"WHEN IT RAINS METEOROLOGY CAN EXPLAIN IT! WHEN IT'S SUNNY METEOROLOGY CAN EXPLAIN IT! WHAT GOOD IS YOUR PATHETIC THEORY OF WEATHER THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING???"

JoeTard still too stupid to understand that evolution doesn't always progress at the same rate in different environments. Sadly for you JoeTard, science isn't constrained by your inability to comprehend it.

Apparently chromosomal sex determination is a combination of mammals and birds in the Platypus. Ten chromosomes form chains during the cell division that make sperm or eggs. The chromosomes at one end of the chromosome chain are similar to mammalian sex chromosomes and the other end has characteristics of bird sex chromosomes.

The platypus X1 chromosome has 11 genes found on all mammalian X chromosomes and the X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.

I did not see a bird in the lineage of the monotreme you linked to. I'm sure one can be drawn into history if evolutionists thought it would make the story line sound better.

Also, the Platypus bill has a highly tuned receptor that picks up very weak electric fields of shrimp and worms. The bill skin has 100,000 innervated mechanoreceptors and electroreceptors. What ancestor had this ability? A fish? Another example of evolution developing independent functions over again?

From all the fuss from evolutionists about the Platypus perhaps it warrants a lot more attention. I've seemed to have struck a nerve. Here's a creature with genes and/or features of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish.

Mosaic creatures are not a good selling point for evolutionists. Trying to fit monotremes into a so-called nested hiearchy is contrived and like putting a square peg in a round hole... you can do it with a hammer while ignoring the contrary evidence. Monotremes appear in the fossil record as monotremes and little has changed except for some degeneration in size and trivial aspects. I guess that confirms that all of life descended from a warm little pond that was struck by lightning according to evolutionists.

Joe, If you'll notice, I made absolutely no commentary on your statement whatsoever. I merely substituted some words to apply your logic to other areas of science. If your logic held up, then great. If it didn't, then you have no one to get angry at but yourself.

Does pointing out logical errors make me non-Christian, Joe? Or were you referring to accepting evolution? What makes that so? Is it because it goes against a 'literal' reading of the Bible? If that's the case, how do you deal with heliocentricity? (Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, and countless others; see www.geocentricbible.com/id18.htm or www.geocentricity.com) I would at least applaud you for being consistent if you believe that the sun, moon, stars, and everything else in the firmament rotates once daily around a stationary earth, based on the 'clear' teaching of scripture. And If there's any doubt that many people interpreted these verses as literally as some creationists currently interpret Genesis, see some of John Calvin or Martin Luther's commentaries regarding heliocentricity. (my favorite: "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" -John Calvin, Sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians.) That sounds like someone I know...

Joe: "Or better yet you have accussed me of erecting a strawman yet you never offered anything to support your claim."

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. A common straw man argument that you (and others) often make is that evolution is a completely random process, or that it driven by nothing but chance. You repeatedly portray evolution this way no matter how many times those of us who actually accept and understand evolutionary theory explain to you that *elements* of evolution are random, but natural selection is a decidedly non-random filter. You make the claim that evolution is driven only by genetic 'accidents' in a few places, two of which are:http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-coyne-is-false.html?showComment=1276520054100#c5344865981349547232http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-coyne-is-false.html?showComment=1276527396287#c1936445582404137310

As it happens, your comment from this post is essentially a straw man. You portray evolutionary theory as not being able to explain both change and stasis.

I just don't have the time go searching through the hundreds of posts containing your errors and misunderstandings of evolution, especially when you are usually called out on them as soon as you make them.

"That was very non-christian of you."

...says the person who reverts to calling his opponents 'diaper boy' and 'evotard'.

Joe, I strongly recommend that you watch this series: http://www.youtube.com/user/glovergj#p/u/29/Fperp1Mezt0...and if you still feel that Christianity and evolution are deeply incompatible at a fundamental level, come back and discuss.

"Or better yet you have accussed me of erecting a strawman yet you never offered anything to support your claim."

Derick Childress:"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. A common straw man argument that you (and others) often make is that evolution is a completely random process, or that it driven by nothing but chance."

That is not what I said.

I even explained it to you.

With the ToE all mutations are genetic accidents.

That is a fact.

"You repeatedly portray evolution this way no matter how many times those of us who actually accept and understand evolutionary theory explain to you that *elements* of evolution are random, but natural selection is a decidedly non-random filter."

1- the filter is BS

2- Whatever survives, survives

"You make the claim that evolution is driven only by genetic 'accidents' in a few places, two of which are:"

It is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

They accumulate for many reasons.

Ernst Mayr even said that- well he said "all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes"- and genetic changes in your scenario are accidents- mistakes, not planned.

IOW Derick you are sorely mistaken about what I said.

And you lashed out in an entirely non-christian manner.

As for evolution and chritianity- Will Provine offers the following-

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †…The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false. Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †…Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. No Free Will (1999) p.123

http://bevets.com/equotesp5.htm#wprovine

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

Derick:If you'll notice, I made absolutely no commentary on your statement whatsoever. I merely substituted some words to apply your logic to other areas of science. If your logic held up, then great. If it didn't, then you have no one to get angry at but yourself.

You only think you used my logic.

That is the problem.

Derick:"I just don't have the time go searching through the hundreds of posts containing your errors and misunderstandings of evolution, especially when you are usually called out on them as soon as you make them."

Being called out and being shown I am wrong are not the same.

Evotards always say I am wrong but never offer anything but that declaration.

The platypus X1 chromosome has 11 genes found on all mammalian X chromosomes and the X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.

I did not see a bird in the lineage of the monotreme you linked to. I'm sure one can be drawn into history if evolutionists thought it would make the story line sound better.

You're still an idiot Neal. You'll continue to be an idiot as long as you refuse to read the primary scientific literature and rely on Creto web sites for your mangled understanding.

Birds aren't ancestral to the monotremes you idiot. Birds and the monotremes shared a common ancestor back in the Permian as shown in the phylogenetic tree, and those particular genes have been conserved in both lineages.

"The case has been made that DMRT1 has an ancient role in vertebrate sex determination. Among reptiles with a wide range of sex-determining systems (including temperature-determined sex, and male Y-chromosome-determined and female W-chromosome-determined sex) there is at least one lizard species with a Z chromosome that contains the same suite of genes as the bird Z (complete with DMRT1), suggesting that DMRT1 may have an ancient role in reptile sex determination. Even more extraordinary is the observation11 that monotreme mammals (the egg-laying platypus and the echidna, which diverged from all other mammals 166 million years ago at the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree) have a sex-chromosome complex that is unrelated to the mammal XY but shares genes with the bird ZW system, including DMRT1.

These two findings suggest that a bird-like ZW system was ancestral to all amniotes (birds, reptiles and mammals), and that it was only recently usurped by SRY in therian mammals (placentals and marsupials) (Fig. 1). The mammalian SRY gene is thought to have evolved from the conserved SOX3 gene on the X chromosome, which is expressed in testis, brain and the central nervous system. This probably happened after SOX3 on an ancestral autosome was truncated and fused with elements that enforced testis-specific expression."

Also, the Platypus bill has a highly tuned receptor that picks up very weak electric fields of shrimp and worms. The bill skin has 100,000 innervated mechanoreceptors and electroreceptors. What ancestor had this ability? A fish? Another example of evolution developing independent functions over again?

Yes idiot, the evidence shows the monotremes evolved this capability independently. Why is that so surprising? Are you as equally slack-jawed when you consider that powered flight has evolved in three diverse groups (insects, birds, bats)?

Mosaic creatures are not a good selling point for evolutionists. Trying to fit monotremes into a so-called nested hiearchy is contrived and like putting a square peg in a round hole... you can do it with a hammer while ignoring the contrary evidence.

What contrary evidence is that Neal? That to your idiotic Creto understanding a platypus superficially looks like a cross between a mammal and a duck?

So if the environment DOES change, and evolution (common descent variety) doesn't take place does that falsify evolution?

Just how do you plan on demonstrating that? Environment doesn't just mean the local weather you idiot. It means all the myriad factors that apply selection pressure on a species - quantity and quality of food supply, quantity and quality of predators, local geographic conditions, etc. And how are you going to demonstrate that evolution didn't take place? Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population. Just looking at rough morphological form won't tell you anything about genetic changes that may affect internal functions or things like behavior.

Seriously Neal, invest in a good biology book and learn a bit about this topic before spouting off. You'll be much better off in the long run.

One reason I didn't need to comb through your old posts looking for straw man arguments is because I knew new ones would pop up eventually:

Thorton: "Progress merely means the process moves forward in time."

Joe: "Then it does progress at the same rate- contrary to your statement that it doesn't."

Your response here is on the border of not even making sense, but the notion that evolution 'should' always progress at the same rate only exists in creationists' minds.

As for the examples I pointed out, *you* may think that "the filter [of natural selection] is BS," but *evolutionists* don't. That is the point in which it becomes a straw man. You are leaving out a significant part of their argument before attacking it. You may think that evolution is due only to the accumulation of genetic mutations; but what you don't seem to understand is that evolutionary theory says only the neutral or beneficial mutations accumulate in the long run. Even calling them 'accidental' is applying teleological language to them.

Joe: "Ernst Mayr even said that- well he said "all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes"- and genetic changes in your scenario are accidents- mistakes, not planned."

Here, you've even distorted what Mayr is saying. Where he said 'changes' you read 'accidents'. Are all 'changes' 'accidents"? My screensaver is set to randomly change colors and patterns; does that mean it is an 'accident' when it turns blue? At this point, we're just arguing semantics.

In another post you stated: "Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan. It is a result of three processes. It does nothing.

Only three Joe? Which evolutionist said that? Natural selection does nothing? Nothing?

I'm trying to be as polite as possible Joe, but your arrogance makes it difficult.

Me: "If you'll notice, I made absolutely no commentary on your statement whatsoever. I merely substituted some words to apply your logic to other areas of science. If your logic held up, then great. If it didn't, then you have no one to get angry at but yourself.

Derick:As for the examples I pointed out, *you* may think that "the filter [of natural selection] is BS," but *evolutionists* don't.

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." (pp. 199-200)

Derick:You may think that evolution is due only to the accumulation of genetic mutations; but what you don't seem to understand is that evolutionary theory says only the neutral or beneficial mutations accumulate in the long run. Even calling them 'accidental' is applying teleological language to them.

2.Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus- a peer-reviewed supplementle text book.

Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10

The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro

Also I have read Mayr's "What Evolution Is"

Your claim that I am distorting Mayr is false.

Another false accusation.

Go figure...

Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan. It is a result of three processes. It does nothing.

Derick Childress:Only three Joe? Which evolutionist said that?

Yes three and any evolutionist who understqands the theory knows that:

Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.”UBerkley

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

Derick:"If you'll notice, I made absolutely no commentary on your statement whatsoever. I merely substituted some words to apply your logic to other areas of science. If your logic held up, then great. If it didn't, then you have no one to get angry at but yourself."

Joe "You only think you used my logic. That is the problem."

Derick:"So please, explain to me how my example is flawed."

Actually the onus is on you to show how it relates.

You left things unanswered:

The Theory of Gravity is great- when things fall, gravity can explain that.

How does it explain it?

When things don't fall, or even float upwards, gravity can explain that also.

Your repeated name calling of those that disagree with you shows your immaturity and lack of ability to defend your shaky arguments. It intimidates no one.

It's not meant to intimidate, although it may be belaboring the obvious. You're an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about. You got you 'science' from your Sunday School teacher who told you a duck humped a sea otter to produce a platypus, and you believed him.

I provide paper after paper from the scientific literature, but you're too cowardly or too ignorant (or both) to address the empirical data. All you can do is equivocate over terms, flap your arms and go "NUH UN!!'

"How are you going to demonstrate evolution didn't take place?" Are you kidding? So evolution is true until we demonstrate it didn't happen? More hogwash.

That was in reference to your claim that you could show an example of where an environment changed but evolution didn't take place. Once again you said something really stupid, once again you got called on it, once again you're trying to backpedal out of it.

There are volumes of science fiction that fill library shelves but quantity does not lead a rational person to believe that we will be invaded by Maritians. Within your quantity of literature that you site it all boils down to suggestions as to what may have happened. Since evolution is considered a fact, then any story that satisfies the imagination supports the fact of evolution. It is a theory that is built on assumptions and suggestions with lots of quantity and time thrown in and the magical box of Natural Selection works it wonders. Natural Selection is your god.

There are volumes of science fiction that fill library shelves but quantity does not lead a rational person to believe that we will be invaded by Maritians. Within your quantity of literature that you site it all boils down to suggestions as to what may have happened. Since evolution is considered a fact, then any story that satisfies the imagination supports the fact of evolution. It is a theory that is built on assumptions and suggestions with lots of quantity and time thrown in and the magical box of Natural Selection works it wonders. Natural Selection is your god.

Tsk tsk tsk...try as you might Neal, you're still an idiot. It's not just the quantity of positive evidence for ToE, it's the quality. It's hundreds of thousands of research papers and experimental results from a hundred different scientific disciplines that cross-correlate and corroborate one another. The technical term is scientific consilience. ToE explains the myriad of technical details in one big coherent and consilient picture.

Given your demonstrated ignorance of the evidence out there and your unwillingness to read or learn, I'll bet you've never even heard of the term. So instead you come here toss out the standard IDC empty rhetoric that is suppose to magically make the evidence disappear. Sorry Neal, but all the empty bluster in the world won't make reality work that way.

I'm still willing and able to discuss the technical details of any of those papers I've cited. Are you? The one constant I can count on when dealing with IDC idiots like you is - ask them to discuss or explain the technical details and they scatter like cockroaches when the kitchen light's turned on.

What is there to discuss about the papers you site that are filled with suggestions and what "probably happened"? No matter the contrary evidence that is like an elephant in the living room, suggestions that support evolution overrule contrary evidence in every case.

Tell me specifically one thing that you know for sure about Common Descent (other that it happened) and I will be interested in discussing in detail.

What is there to discuss about the papers you site that are filled with suggestions and what "probably happened"? No matter the contrary evidence that is like an elephant in the living room, suggestions that support evolution overrule contrary evidence in every case.

What contrary evidence would that be? Every time I've asked you to explain why the conclusions of those papers is wrong you scream and run away.

Tell me specifically one thing that you know for sure about Common Descent (other that it happened) and I will be interested in discussing in detail.

I've already supplied several that you couldn't explain - atavistic legs in marine mammals for one. You come up with a coherent and consilient IDC explanation for that one yet? "INTELLIGENT DESIGNER works in mysterious ways!" isn't particularly satisfying.

Or how about the SNPs that were used to produce the canid phylogenetic tree I showed you. Any IDC explanation for them?

How about endogenous retroviruses found in genomes of related species? I'm sure common descent is a coherent and consilient explanation for them. What handwaving bluster does IDC have?

Many endogenosu retroviruses are known to perform critical functions in organisms. If some ERV's serve a purpose, maybe they all do.

The question is not 'do they serve a purpose'. The question is why are they found in the distribution they are, a distribution that shows a clear nested hierarchical pattern indicative of common descent.

"The Designer put them there that way for unknown reasons" doesn't cut it.

Keep in mind that this is not the only evidence for common descent, just one piece of a consilient many that all indicate common descent.

JoeTard studied to be an engineering technician and works repairing small electrical appliances. He has zero formal training in any college level science classes even remotely connected to evolutionary biology or genetics. But he has memorized without understanding great swaths of propaganda from AIG, ICR, and the Discovery Institute, so he's got that going for him.

What he lacks in intelligence and knowledge he tries to compensate for with childish bluster. He's quite a well know figure in web C/E boards for his incompetence and belligerent attitude.

Thorton believes that atavistic legs in marine mammals offers primary support for the "fact" of common descent.

Atavism is basically a concocted evolutionary notion. It is a birth defect that evolutionists cherry pick whenever it fits their current storyline. If it doesn't fit the storyline, then it is just a plain old run of the mill birth defect.

Perhaps Thorton intended to say that the Whale has so-called vestigal pelvic bones. They are betting that functionality of these doesn't become well known. These so-called vestigal bones come in many different shapes throughout the marine mammal species. My guess is that the are useful in reproduction.

So Thorton, if functionality for these marine mammal "pelvic" bones is found, does that falsify common descent?

"Perhaps Thorton intended to say that the Whale has so-called vestigal pelvic bones. They are betting that functionality of these doesn't become well known. These so-called vestigal bones come in many different shapes throughout the marine mammal species. My guess is that the are useful in reproduction."

Great. Specify a hypothesis how they are useful in reproduction and suggest an experiment to test it.

Neal Tedford said: "So Thorton, if functionality for these marine mammal "pelvic" bones is found, does that falsify common descent?"

Neal, it is a common misunderstanding among creationists that 'vestigial' means 'non-functional'. That is not the case. 'Vestigial' means that the homologous characteristic has seemingly lost all or most of its *original* function. Ostriches have vestigial wings; that is, the wings no longer serve their original purpose of helping in powered flight, but they they may have taken on a new functionality, like helping balance the animal while running, or providing shade for chicks.

The whales pelvic bones are vestigial in the sense that they no longer serve the same purpose as they did in the whale's land dwelling ancestors, whether or not they have been co-opted into a new function.

Thorton believes that atavistic legs in marine mammals offers primary support for the "fact" of common descent.

Atavism is basically a concocted evolutionary notion. It is a birth defect that evolutionists cherry pick whenever it fits their current storyline. If it doesn't fit the storyline, then it is just a plain old run of the mill birth defect.

You said you were willing to discuss the details of the papers I posted. Were you lying about that too? This is from the Whales thread:

"Abstract: The amino-acid sequences of the T-domain region of the Tbx4 gene, which is required for hindlimb development, are 100% identical in humans and mice. Cetaceans have lost most of their hindlimb structure, although hindlimb buds are present in very early cetacean embryos. To examine whether the Tbx4 gene has the same function in cetaceans as in other mammals, we analyzed Tbx4 sequences from cetaceans, dugong, artiodactyls and marine carnivores. A total of 39 primers were designed using human and dog Tbx4 nucleotide sequences. Exons 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Tbx4 genes from cetaceans, artiodactyls, and marine carnivores were sequenced. Non-synonymous substitution sites were detected in the T-domain regions from some cetacean species, but were not detected in those from artiodactyls, the dugong, or the carnivores. The C-terminal regions contained a number of non-synonymous substitutions. Although some indels were present, they were in groups of three nucleotides and therefore did not cause frame shifts. The dN/dS values for the T-domain and C-terminal regions of the cetacean and artiodactylous Tbx4 genes were much lower than 1, indicating that the Tbx4 gene maintains it function in cetaceans, although full expression leading to hindlimb development is suppressed."

The Tbx4 gene is well know to be responsible for leg development in mammals. The research shows tbx4 is present in cetaceans but is no longer expressed. Whales and dolphins are occasionally born with mutations that partially enable the genes again, resulting in the formation of atavistic hind limbs. Note that this is also consilient with the fossil record, that shows the ancestors of cetaceans were legged terrestrial mammals.

Please give me a coherent, consilient, supported with evidence explanation for why an omnipotent Intelligent Designer put the genes for hind limb development in whales and dolphins.

Perhaps Thorton intended to say that the Whale has so-called vestigal pelvic bones. They are betting that functionality of these doesn't become well known. These so-called vestigal bones come in many different shapes throughout the marine mammal species. My guess is that the are useful in reproduction.

So Thorton, if functionality for these marine mammal "pelvic" bones is found, does that falsify common descent?

Vestigial doesn't mean functionless you idiot. It means having lost or been modified from its original function.

I still want to see your explanation for ERVs and SNPs that show clear evidence of common descent too.

troy said: "Neal thinks he is a culture warrior fighting the good fight. All is permitted, including lying."

I have to jump in a second here and defend Neal, and most of the other IDers and creationists here. I sincerely believe that not a single one of them is intentionally lying. There is a *huge* difference in being misinformed, and being dishonest. When I was a young earth creationist, I would have NEVER knowingly used an argument that contained a falsehood. Whenever I found out that a particular argument was inaccurate, or had been refuted, I abandoned that particular argument. (and once I started researching the arguments on my own, I quickly ran out ones I could use.) I don't even think that people like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham are intentionally lying, as hard as that may be to believe. I think that the confirmation bias of having the 'right' interpretation of scripture is overpowering. They believe, as do most IDers here, as did I when I was younger, that evolution simply *can not* be true, not just that it *is not*.

And Cornelius, I must say that even though we disagree on many things, I do appreciate the fact that you allow comments on your articles. It makes for one of the more interesting places on the web for discussions on this topic.

You see everything through the colored glasses of evolution, so homology = support for evolution... except when stuff is different and that supports evolution too.

How do you know that something is vestigal and wasn't that way from the start? It's the vestigal argument because I say its vestigal.

So common descent is a fact because the whale has a tbx4 gene? A designer would not have kept the gene and turned off its expression?

Things are usually found to be more complex than what evolutionists have said historically, so my bet is that there is more going on with the tbx4 gene than what you imply.

But, let's say that it does not have a function in any way. How does that contradict intelligent design? Software programmers copy code, modify it, and comment out unneeded code all the time. This is considered an efficient practice from a software designers point of view.

Evolutionists have an obsession with a distorted view of "efficiency". First, their guesses about "junk" and poor design within life is usually to be found to be based on incomplete knowledge.

Second, their view of what a Creator should have done is very constrained and shallow. Why couldn't a creator have taken a basic genetic code "blueprint" and modified, tweaked, copied, and commented out what was not needed for a particular species? This is standard design practice for human engineers. What about the recent misleading headline about scientists creating synthetic life? What did they do? They didn't create life from scratch, they copied and modified what already existed in nature.

You made a religious statement about the limits of a creator. Ironically you use words like all powerful, yet you put artifical limits on what a creator could or would have done. After all if he is all powerful, couldn't he have done what he wants? Does he need your approval? Must he have done things the way he would have wanted them? Imagine the creator saying "I can't leave the tbx4 gene in a whale, because Thorton would not approve".

Thorton, your expression of what a creator wouldn't have done is like something copied out of what Richard Dawkins or a hundred other philosophers since Darwin have written. I have never received an answer from an evolutionist on this other than they do science and ID is religion.

Help me understand, why do you place limits on the purpose and work of what a supposed creator would or would not do??? Why does it bother you that the Creators design would parallel a lot of human design techniques? Why is that off limits to a creator in your estimation?

Interesting comment about your past beliefs. My past is opposite. I started out as an evolutionist, but found the details lacking and contradictory evidence too overwhelming to continue in such a falsehood. I am not a YEC, but a creationist who is open to how old the earth is. Some people lose their belief in a creator because their view of the creator was flawed to begin with and they gobble up the fairy tale stuff of evolution because it answers some of their questions in a way. Look at the evidence contrary to evolution. That dog can't hunt.

"I have to jump in a second here and defend Neal, and most of the other IDers and creationists here. I sincerely believe that not a single one of them is intentionally lying."

You are being naive. The Dover trail has shown the willingness of creationists to knowingly tell falsehoods under oath. I am not saying that all IDCers here are liars. Some are too stupid to know that they peddle crap. Others are willingly blind.

"Some people lose their belief in a creator because their view of the creator was flawed to begin with.."

Neal, I couldn't agree with you more, but I'm not in that category; I'm not ashamed to say that I love Jesus and I'm still as awed by my Creator as much as anyone.

I too once found the arguments against evolution compelling, especially when I was getting them from places like ICR, AIG, and the DI, three of many organizations that have the 'right' answer to begin with, before any 'science' or 'research' is even done. Actually, at one point I had it in mind to become a full time Creation Science Evangelist like Ken Ham.

You say you are a creationist who is open to how old the earth is. In some sense, I guess you could say I'm a creationist who is open to not just when, but how God created life. (Though, I don't usually use the term 'creationist' in the modern sense to describe my views) I'm a 'creationist' in the sense I believe that God created the universe and all laws that govern it, but I'm truly an evolutionist in the sense that I believe that the origin and diversity of life on earth can be fully explained in natural terms, and that at no point is it necessary to postulate a miracle in the process.

If you're like I was, it may be odd to think that one can hold those two views simultaneously, since they're usually portrayed as mutually exclusive by the fringes on each side of the argument, but I can attest that that is no the case. www.biologos.org makes for some good reading on the subject, and I can't recommend enough Gordon J. Glover's series on science and faith: http://www.youtube.com/user/glovergj#p/u/29/Fperp1Mezt0

troy said: "You are being naive. The Dover trail has shown the willingness of creationists to knowingly tell falsehoods under oath. I am not saying that all IDCers here are liars. Some are too stupid to know that they peddle crap. Others are willingly blind."

Perhaps I am being naive. But I think it's possible you're being overly simplistic. It's always easier to think that if someone disagrees with you, it *must* be because they're stupid, or they have an agenda, or whatever. Sometimes it's simply because they interpret the evidence differently. At one point I was a young earth creationist. At a different point a few weeks later I was a naturalistic evolutionist. The change didn't happen because I all of a sudden got smarter in the span of a few days. It didn't even happen because I learned a new fact or heard a persuasive argument. The change happened because I evaluated the evidence differently. In my case it was a clear case of confirmation bias, a condition that can afflict *anyone* at some point or another regardless of intelligence level or education. Sure, there are some IDers here who I wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning. But there are many others out there who are much smarter than myself, well educated, extremely intelligent, and articulate. So it's not as simple as: "creationists are dumb, evolutionists are smart".

You see everything through the colored glasses of evolution, so homology = support for evolution... except when stuff is different and that supports evolution too.

No, I go with the preponderance of positive evidence. That stuff you IDCers have none of.

How do you know that something is vestigal and wasn't that way from the start? It's the vestigal argument because I say its vestigal.

No, it's vestigial because the huge amount of independent consilient positive evidence indicates it's vestigial. I bet you still don't know what consilient means, since as an IDCer you never deal with the term.

So common descent is a fact because the whale has a tbx4 gene? A designer would not have kept the gene and turned off its expression?

No, common descent is considered a fact because of the huge amount of independent consilient positive evidence, of which the tbx4 gene is one teeny weeny part.

(snip a big chunk of Neal's blithering)

Just as I predicted, you went straight to the standard intellectually dishonest IDC excuse of "but the Designer could have made it that way!!"

That's exactly why IDC is so worthless as a scientific explanation. Any evidence for common descent, no matter how compelling, can be hand waved away with "maybe the Designer made it look like common descent for reasons unknown!". Is your Designer God a liar and a trickster Neal? Why did he make so much evidence that points to naturally occurring evolution and common descent?

Thorton, your expression of what a creator wouldn't have done is like something copied out of what Richard Dawkins or a hundred other philosophers since Darwin have written. I have never received an answer from an evolutionist on this other than they do science and ID is religion.

The scientific evidence for common descent doesn't show a Designer couldn't have done it. It shows that positing a supernatural Designer isn't necessary, and that natural processes can indeed account for all the empirical observations in a coherent and consilient fashion. That's why science requires positive evidence for a claim, especially one as outlandish as you propose. Believe in what ever religious dogma you want, but don't expect your unsupported religious beliefs to be taught in science classes.

Now Neal, are you ever going to address the ERVs and SNPs that clearly show a pattern of common descent? Or are you going to hand wave and bluster and cowardly avoid the evidence some more?

Thorton says, "It shows that positing a supernatural Designer isn't necessary, and that natural processes can indeed account for all the empirical observations in a coherent and consilient fashion."

The problem is that it doesn't. You have big problems showing empirical evidence that small changes accumulate to account for universal common descent.

You did not answer my question as to why God could not use design techniques that are commonly employed by human designers? How is that being a trickster if he did?

It's time to open up your mind Thorton and think outside the Natural Selection box (which explains very little about universal common descent). You only see all the evidence for Natural Selection because that's what you have been focused on. Natural Selection is simply not powerful enough to do what you think it can. All evolutionists feel they need to say is that Natural Selection did something and then claim victory. But just saying something does not make it so.

You can make believe that Natural Selection can do all these things, but that's not realistic. Intentional design is a better explanation.

It sounds like you hold to creation in the same regard as Francis Collins and the biologos group or Ken Miller. Is that correct?

Perhaps you can help me understand your position. The question is simply, at what point then does God specifically get involved in the process of creating? Ken Miller says that God kicked it all off at the Big Bang and things naturally evolved because of the parameters that God set up at that time. What is your view?

Thorton says, "It shows that positing a supernatural Designer isn't necessary, and that natural processes can indeed account for all the empirical observations in a coherent and consilient fashion."

The problem is that it doesn't. You have big problems showing empirical evidence that small changes accumulate to account for universal common descent.

No, I don't have any problem at all. The process and the evidence have been explained and accepted by 99.99% of the scientific community, those who study and use the theory for a living. I keep presenting examples of the detailed evidence here but you keep ignoring them. That you can't or won't bother to read and learn about the evidence is your problem, not science's.

You did not answer my question as to why God could not use design techniques that are commonly employed by human designers? How is that being a trickster if he did?

Once again because you aren't listening - no one said a sooper dooper Ultimate Being couldn't have created things that look like natural evolution. There is no positive evidence to suggest It did, and plenty to suggest it didn't.

Rain could be caused by God sending invisible little pixies to pee on us from above, but since there is a naturalistic explanation supported by copious evidence the peeing pixies are unnecessary. It's exactly the same for common descent. We have a verified naturalistic mechanism. We have lots of positive evidence. We don't need a majik "poof" to explain the observed reality.

It's time to open up your mind Thorton and think outside the Natural Selection box (which explains very little about universal common descent). You only see all the evidence for Natural Selection because that's what you have been focused on. Natural Selection is simply not powerful enough to do what you think it can. All evolutionists feel they need to say is that Natural Selection did something and then claim victory. But just saying something does not make it so.

That's why it's so hard to discuss evolution with you guys, because most of you don't have a clue what the theory and mechanisms actually are. You spend so much time attacking the cartoon version you learned in Sunday school you have no sniff of a chance at getting any real understanding.

You can make believe that Natural Selection can do all these things, but that's not realistic. Intentional design is a better explanation.

Then go ahead and give me the "better explanation" for the ERVs and SNPs that form a clear nested hierarchical pattern of common descent. You've only been cowardly avoiding them for four posts now.

I'm aware of the various mechanisms of evolution but Natural Selection is as you say the "filter". The mechanisms are insufficent in themselves to drive universal common descent. Therefore Natural Selection is the magic box that somehow makes it all work out.

You said, "Rain could be caused by God sending invisible little pixies to pee on us from above, but since there is a naturalistic explanation supported by copious evidence the peeing pixies are unnecessary. It's exactly the same for common descent. We have a verified naturalistic mechanism. We have lots of positive evidence. We don't need a majik "poof" to explain the observed reality."

No that is where you take a huge leap of imagination. Natural Selection is your "majik poof". You substitute a naturalistic majik poof and you can automatically claim the high road of empirical science while explaining away the need for a designer.

The digital information code of DNA is best explained by a designer, not natural selection "majik".

Fact, digital information code is always observed to have originated by intelligence. There is no purely naturalistic explanation for the origination of digital information anywhere. None. Period. Digital information requires intelligence. That can and is empirically observed all the time. Natural Selection and purely naturalistic processes have never been shown to originate digital information, biological or otherwise. It is unrealistic to hold any longer to some notion that it can. One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

I'm aware of the various mechanisms of evolution but Natural Selection is as you say the "filter". The mechanisms are insufficent in themselves to drive universal common descent. Therefore Natural Selection is the magic box that somehow makes it all work out.

Blah blah blah. Please give me the "better explanation" for the ERVs and SNPs that form a clear nested hierarchical pattern of common descent. You've only been cowardly avoiding them for five posts now.

I have a theory that explains the observed data and is well supported by positive empirical evidence. You don't. You lose.

No that is where you take a huge leap of imagination. Natural Selection is your "majik poof". You substitute a naturalistic majik poof and you can automatically claim the high road of empirical science while explaining away the need for a designer.

Maybe you better educate yourself about digital code first. A digital code uses abstract symbols (typically binary) to represent analog information. DNA molecules are not abstract symbols, they're chemical molecules. Analog information must be sampled and digitized before it can be digitally manipulated. You don't even understand and can't tell me the basics of how analog data is digitized and stored. If DNA is an abstract digital code, why won't a genome made out of modeling clay and sticks react to form an amino acid? Since DNA is just an abstract digital code made of 1's and 0's, then any media should be able to transcribe the message, right?

I have to admit your attempts to bluff your way through another topic you don't come anywhere near understanding are pretty amusing, although your idiocy does get a bit boring.

BTW, when are you going to give me the "better explanation" for the ERVs and SNPs that form a clear nested hierarchical pattern of common descent? You've only been cowardly avoiding them for six posts now.

Thorton, your experience with digital appears limited. Do you work for the phone company?

I'll refer you to a Nature article here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

As for continuing the discussion of nested patterns, you probably should wait a couple more years until genetic research completely destroys Darwins tree of life. Perhaps you haven't heard but they are redrawing it into a bush.

But read up on the digital stuff. It sounds like you are familar with what "digital" is you just need to expand your understanding of the various formats and codes it can assume.

I'll refer you to a Nature article here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

You status as an idiot is confirmed. That article does not use 'digital' in the same sense as the abstract digital code in a computer. It's using 'digital' in the most general of terms, merely something that can be described as an ordered string of objects. In that sense, any chemical reaction is also 'digital'.

DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of computerized digitized information. No analog component is sampled, nothing is digitized, no digital processing is done. The whole IDiot argument that DNA is like computerized digital information is one more dishonest equivocation designed to fool ignorant boobs just like you Neal.

Simple fact is, you don't have a clue about what digital code really means, how digitizing is done, how it is used. You're as ignorant of the topic as your are of evolutionary biology. But being the brainless Cretobot you are, you regurgitate the same nonsense you get from the DI and think you've made a clever argument.

Why are you such a coward and refuse to discuss the evidence for ERVs and SNPs that form clear nested hierarchies? Why did you lie about wanting to discuss the actual evidence?

But read up on the digital stuff. It sounds like you are familar with what "digital" is you just need to expand your understanding of the various formats and codes it can assume.

Tell us about the 'digital stuff' Neal. Tell us what format and code DNA assumes. Tell us what, specifically, got digitized, and by what mechanism. What was the sampling rate? What's the Nyquist frequency? Tell us how the digital data is processed. Is there any data compression? What kind of digital filtering or smoothing is done? What are the filter coefficients? How is the reverse digital to analog function done? What are the bandwidth limitations?

Come on big mouth. You're such an expert on digital code, show us what you've got.

Your job experience has somehow narrowed your view of digital to mean that it must apparently be converted from analog first. While that is true in some applications not all digital must be converted from analog first, for example 0 and 1 in binary code does not need conversion.

Smokey, I am astonished that you would see the digital code as only a metaphor given your background. Of course, if you do not have a background in programming, I guess it would leave a gap in your understanding.

Seriously guys, it would be advisable to study up on this area because the full impact of the information age upon biology will be the undoing of Darwinism. have to run... more later.

Your job experience has somehow narrowed your view of digital to mean that it must apparently be converted from analog first. While that is true in some applications not all digital must be converted from analog first, for example 0 and 1 in binary code does not need conversion.

Yes it does idiot, if you want the information to interact with the physical world. Digital information means the original analog information has been quantized into discrete values which are recorded as abstract symbols (usually 1,0) for storage and manipulation purposes, something you’re apparently too ignorant to know. Then, to go from the stored information back to the real world it has to be unquantized and returned to analog. Somewhere along the line the discrete binary values have to be reconverted to analog, be it to drive your monitor or the sound from your headphones or wherever.

You're the idiot who made the claim that DNA is “digital information code“. I want you to explain the mechanism by which the "digital" information you claim exists in DNA was digitized in the first place, and how it is reconverted back to a real world physical object.

We both know you can’t because you have no idea what you’re talking about, in either digital information or evolutionary biology Pastor Neal Tedford. You’re a big fraud trying to bluff your way through technical topics that are way over your head. That’s why you refuse to discuss the ERV or the SNP data despite lying and telling me you would discuss them.

Doesn’t your Bible say something about bearing false witness? Why did you lie when you said you wanted to discuss the technical details? Sounds like you need to go to confession.

Seriously guys, it would be advisable to study up on this area because the full impact of the information age upon biology will be the undoing of Darwinism.

Seriously, it would be advisable for you to quit the bluffing and mindlessly regurgitating of buzzwords you don’t understand, unless you enjoy looking like an idiot. As for the “undoing of Darwinism’, it’s something you Creationist morons have been proclaiming as imminent for over 150 years now. I’ll take my chances on the science over your willful ignorance.

I challenged Pastor Neal:"Pastor Neal, if you believe that there is an actual (symbolic) code and not a metaphorical one, please point us to the symbolic step(s) in replication, transcription, and/or translation."

Pastor Neal demonstrated his lack of faith by dodging:"Smokey, I am astonished that you would see the digital code as only a metaphor given your background. Of course, if you do not have a background in programming, I guess it would leave a gap in your understanding."

Pastor Neal, if you believe that there is an actual (symbolic) code and not a metaphorical one, please point us to the symbolic step(s) in replication, transcription, and/or translation.

"Seriously guys, it would be advisable to study up on this area because the full impact of the information age upon biology will be the undoing of Darwinism. have to run... more later."

Pastor Neal, I don't need to "study up on this area." I'm in it, producing new knowledge. You are a very arrogant man.

Are you asking abou the necessity for cutting and splcing at the mRNA level? Why is the removal of the introns necessary? I undertstand that the introns are involved in cotrolling what is cut out and pasted together, so this way is necessary. ANs why would another way be better?

Gentlemen, for starters go here for a basic and brief intro to digital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

Why don't you go read it first, since you apparently don't even know the definition of digital.

and then here: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/dna.htm

Oh boy, another dumbed down for laymen non-technical description using computer code as an analogy. Big fat hairy whoop. Have you ever read an actual college level biology or genetics textbook in your life? Or do you just troll the web looking for the simplest analogies your wee brain can handle?

Why did you lie about wanting to discuss the details of the evidence for common descent? Does your church condone lying?

When will everybody realize that insults only make a ones position look silly. I'd rather have a conversation with someone who disagrees with me completely and is polite rather than someone who agrees with me and is an idiot.

Gentlemen, I believe you are limiting the definition of digital. Although digital systems are used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary nor electronic. An abacus is a simple digital device.

DNA and electronic technology relate metaphorically, but DNA is digital in nature, not just a metaphor.

Gentlemen, I believe you are limiting the definition of digital. Although digital systems are used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary nor electronic. An abacus is a simple digital device.

You are equivocating over the definition of digital. As I already pointed out, under that broad broad definition any chemical reaction can be considered 'digital' because it maps discrete inputs to discrete outputs. That is not the extremely narrow definition of 'digital' that applies to modern electronic computers and software.

Your IDiot argument is based on dishonestly playing bait-and-switch with the broad and narrow definitions. That's another reason why such IDC duplicity is laughed at by knowledgeable scientists.

DNA and electronic technology relate metaphorically

Thanks. You just agreed with our point and refuted your own stupid argument.

Now why did you lie about wanting to discuss the details of the evidence for common descent, like ERVs and SNPs?

My point from the start was that DNA was digital... you assumed I meant electronic.

Okay, now that we have established the digital nature of DNA, it is important to see that not only is DNA digital but it is a digital information system (not electronic).

It is a digital information system and intelligence is the only originator of digital information. This can be empirically observed, while purely naturalistic forces have never been observed to originate digital information. Therefore intentional design by an intelligent creator is the the best explanation for the origin of cellular DNA.

Smokey and Thorton, it is time to step out of the 19th century and into the information age regarding biology.

My point from the start was that DNA was digital... you assumed I meant electronic.

No it wasn't and no I didn't. You were making the claim DNA functions the same as digital computer code, so therefore DNA must be designed like digital computer code.

It is a digital information system and intelligence is the only originator of digital information.

Since you just posted links and admitted that even chemical reactions can be considered 'digital' under the broad definition, that statement is false.

You got caught in a dishonest equivocation and are once again squirming to try and save face. In a way it's not your fault, since you're too stupid to understand the argument and were just regurgitating something you picked up on some IDC site somewhere. Not your fault, but still your responsibility for posting nonsense before checking.

Why did you lie about wanting to discuss the details of the evidence for common descent, like ERVs and SNPs?

Ahhh, you went right where I thought you would go with it. You have made a colossial error in equating basic chemical properties with DNA information. I'll give you time to rethink that, because you may want to restate your position. Got to run for now.

Ahhh, you went right where I thought you would go with your regurgitated IDiot arguments. You made a colossal error in getting caught dishonestly equivocating over the definition of 'digital. Now you're going to try and equivocate over the definition of 'information'. I'll give you time to rethink that, because you may want to restate your position before you make yourself look even more stupid.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain the ERV and SNP data. Why did you lie and say you were willing to discuss the details when you won't touch them?

How does that lying and blustering work for you when addressing your congregation?

Joe G has covered the ERV argument. Besides if the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, are somewhat similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species?

Again, ERV's just as well support design as they do evolution. Perhaps even more so for design because functionality has been discovered for some of these ERV's that have been identified.

Does functionality falsify evolution?

Of course not, because evolution is considered a fact regardless of functionality of ERV's and even if ERV's didn't exist. Evolution is a philosophy that cherry picks evidence for support to keep the masses thinking that it is a credible scientific theory.

Nested hierarchies has been used to support evolution, but an explanation by common design works better because there are many animals that do not fit neatly into this pattern. Genetic research is causing a rethinking of Darwins tree of life. Animals that were once thought to have fit neatly into the tree are being placed in independent branches. The fact that animals are often very distinctive and can be placed into separate groups is not support for evolution. Evolution, as Darwin said, required an innumerable host of animals all the way up the tree of life. What we see are often dramatic gaps and not the slowly changing forms. New life forms often appear suddenly in the fossil record followed by relative stasis.

Father Tedford is lying again. Phylogenetic trees estimated independently from morphology, proteins and DNA sequences are remarkably consistent. Certainly for animals the nested hierarchy is strongly supported and at higher taxonomic levels incredibly accurate (more so than estimates of the gravitational constant, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc). Only near the root of the tree (before there were any animals) has horizontal gene transfer given the tree a more entangled structure.

If you get your information from the sugar-coated talkorigins website then everything is just wonderful with evolution and skeptics are on par with flat-earthers. It is a great feel good site if you are an evolutionist.

Why should the general public be made aware of the issues with the tree of life.

One example... animals as diverse as jellyfish, arthropods, mollusks, and vertebrates all use the pax-6 gene to control development of their very distinct types of eyes. Because their eye-types are so different, it previously hadn’t been thought that these organisms even shared a common ancestor with an eye. Yet, you have this similar gene. What could explain similarity of genes in very diverse creatures that are not on the same "branch"? DESIGN! Look at the evidence that contradicts evolution, not just cherry pick support. The dog won't hunt, Troy.

LOL! He "covered" it the same way you covered atavistic legs in whales, and ERVs, and SNPs in the canid genetic evidence, and "digital" information in DNA - ran from the actual data, blustered, waved your hands and went "NUH UH!!.

You clowns can't answer a direct technical question to save your life. I guess that's one of the things that makes your IDiot anti-science freak show so entertaining.

What could explain similarity of genes in very diverse creatures that are not on the same "branch"? DESIGN!

I can list plenty of things that, if found, would have falsified the theory of evolution. Having the fossil phylogenetic tree not match the genetic one, for instance. What potential empirical evidence will falsify DESIGN? Remember, if it's not falsifiable, it's not science.

"Besides if the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, are somewhat similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species?

Again, ERV's just as well support design as they do evolution. Perhaps even more so for design because functionality has been discovered for some of these ERV's that have been identified."

Pastor Neal, that's just Palinesque word salad. You clearly don't have a clue, yet you pontificate from a pulpit of un-Christian arrogance.

"Nested hierarchies has been used to support evolution, but an explanation by common design works better because there are many animals that do not fit neatly into this pattern."

Which one?

"Genetic research is causing a rethinking of Darwins tree of life."

Yes, it's much richer, but the tree is still there. Moreover, a round bush (with the beginning of life at the center and the present day at the outside) is a better metaphor.

Surely a competent pastor understands the use of metaphor when teaching others?

"Animals that were once thought to have fit neatly into the tree are being placed in independent branches."

Name these animals and the independent branches, then.

"The fact that animals are often very distinctive and can be placed into separate groups is not support for evolution."

That's not what "nested hierarchy" means, Pastor Neal. A nested hierarchy is much more restrictive than that. Moreover, the nested hierarchies of whole organisms are superimposable on the nested hierarchies of their individual components. There is no set of designed objects that fits those criteria.

"Abstract: TIP49a (just called as simply TIP49 in previous reports [Kanemaki et al., 1997; Makino et al., 1998]) was found in a rat nuclear protein complex that included the TATA-binding protein. TIP49a possesses multiple sequence motifs for ATPase and DNA helicase. Since TIP49a structurally resembles prokaryotic DNA helicase RuvB, TIP49a is resumed to be a putative DNA helicase. We demonstrated TIP49a-related gene(s) in variety organisms from human to archaea. Amino acid identities expressed as aligned scores of human, yeast, and A. fulgidus TIP49a gene counterparts to the rat sequence were 99, 67, and 46, respectively. Strikingly, two homologous regions of mammalian TIP49a and bacterial RuvB exhibited an aligned score of 17-38. We demonstrated that the eukaryotic TIP49a counterparts were immunologically conserved. These lines of evidence show that the TIP49a gene is a notable example of a highly conserved gene among organisms. An extensive homology search revealed another class of TIP49-related gene in the eukaryotes, designated as TIP49b. Moreover, a phylogenetical study suggested that archaeal TIP49 genes belong to the TIP49b ancestor but not to the TIP49a one and that TIP49a evolved from TIP49b in accordance with divergence of archaea and eukarya. The TIP49 gene family is thought to play a fundamental role in a biological activity"

But you still get ignorant boobs like Tedford here who read something of a Creto site and blindly regurgitate it without the slightest bit of understanding.

It is laughable to see the Darwinists using only the aspects of nested hierarchies that support their view, when a design hypothesis does it better AND solve all the issues that nested hierarchies cannot account for.

Has any of the Darwinists ever considered the modern realities about the Tree of life, as Koonin describes it:

SURVEY AND SUMMARY Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Eugene V. Koonin

National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,

Bethesda, MD, USA

Received January 9, 2009; Revised January 30, 2009; Accepted February 4, 2009

From the abstract:"Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected.Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life."

WHAT IS THAT! NS is not the quantitatively dominant [force]

AND

Koonin think the Tree of Life should actually be called a network or ‘forest’ of life.

None of the Darwinists in this discussion shows any insight into this comprehensive study and its conclusions. No wonder we are having trouble arguing with archaic Darwinian thoughts in the minds of ill-informed Darwinists in this discussion.

It seems as if genomic studies already managed to remove most old notions of Darwinian evolution, but most Darwinists ignore the elephant in the room.

P.S. I am not insinuating the Koonin made a design conclusion, I am just saying that he handled the data for what it actually shows.

"It is laughable to see the Darwinists using only the aspects of nested hierarchies that support their view, when a design hypothesis does it better AND solve all the issues that nested hierarchies cannot account for."

You don't have a clue, do you? Nested hierarchies are predicted when genetic information is transmitted *vertically*, i.e. between parents and offspring, and not *horizontally*, i.e. between individuals within the same generation. Horizontal transfer connects branches, destroying the nested hierarchy. In contrast, there is no logical reason why a designer would not swap design elements horizontally. If Toyota invents a way to make cars run more efficiently, other car makers will copy the idea (horizontal transmission), thus destroying any nested hierarchy in the evolution of car parts. Unless the designer wants to create the illusion of evolution by vertical transmission, there is no way that design predicts a nested hierarchy.

Evolutionists claim that biblical creationists lack the ability to properly assess biological sciences due to their presupposition that God created all ‘kinds’ of life. We submit that the opposite is true

LOL! But everyone knows ID has nothing to do with Biblical creationism, right? Nice job of shooting yourself in the foot JoeTard. Again.

It is laughable to see the Darwinists using only the aspects of nested hierarchies that support their view, when a design hypothesis does it better AND solve all the issues that nested hierarchies cannot account for.

Has any of the Darwinists ever considered the modern realities about the Tree of life, as Koonin describes it:

SURVEY AND SUMMARY Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Hey Michael, why did you quote mine the abstract? Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying. Here is the whole thing

"Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future"

You really sound incoherent trying to argue on behalf of a design hypothesis. Stop trying and try to compute what Koonin has found. What would you think he implied by "...a network or ‘forest’ of life". Why is the tree approach not feasible in his mind? Where is the support for nested hierarchies in anything Koonin found. Horizontal vs. vertical sharing of genetic traits?

Thanks to Thorton the entire abstract has been placed for everyone to see that virtually nothing of the Darwinian view of evolution holds up any more. Koonin even propose that:

"... a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future"

That my friends implies that most of the pre-2009 evolutionary views about genes are obsolete and require serious rethinking. The thing is... I suspect that Troy and Thorton might represent an accurate sample of the majority evolutionary minds. Too bad for science, if it weren't for good scientists that know Darwinism is better left in the past of bad ideas.

Wake up and realize that Darwinian thought is loosing because it does not comport with reality.

P.S. I never implied that Koonin's work supported design. I made that clear and used it simply to show how many archaic irrelevant Darwinian thinking are presented here as if it has any relevance.

How about this insight into "junk DNA" that reflect well on stasis... the subject of this post:

From Koonin's article (see above):"A burning question in genome-wide evolutionary studies, especially, for mammals with their huge genomes, what fraction of the non-coding DNA is ‘real’ junk, and how much is subject to yet unknown functional constraints. The possibility that, despite the lack of detectable evolutionary conservation, a large fraction if not most of the human DNA is, in fact, functionally important and hence maintained by selection is often discussed, especially, in the light of the demonstrations that a verylarge fraction of the genome is transcribed (192–194)."

"You really sound incoherent trying to argue on behalf of a design hypothesis."

More bluster. You apparently have no reasoned argument why design doesn't predict a nested hierarchy, in contrast to evolution with vertical transmission, so you don't even try to address my argument.

Michael:"Stop trying and try to compute what Koonin has found. What would you think he implied by "...a network or ‘forest’ of life". Why is the tree approach not feasible in his mind?"

Only near the base of the tree there was sufficient horizontal transfer to destroy a tree-like pattern. During most of evolutionary history (the "second phase" or "Darwinian phase", as some call it) there was not enough horizontal transfer to disrupt the tree-like branching caused by speciation with vertical transfer. So the tree-approach is feasible in Koonin's mind except during the very early stages of evolution. Would you agree with that? If not, please explain (as in, using reasoned argument, not bluster and hand-waving) why not.

Also Darwin used the wrod "Creator" in a published version of his book.

By your "logic" the theory of evolution is then a Creation theory.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."- Charles darwin last sentence in "On the Origins..."

And how do you explain that the people who understand ID and Creation the best know they are not the ame?

You simply claim that it pertains ONLY to the bottom of the "phylogenetic tree". Please quote the article that support this isolated view of the issues with the TOL hypothesis.

My point is that your blanket dismissal of the issues with the TOL presented by Koonin does not stand. But let the biologist that wonder about the efficacy of Darwinian processes read Koonin's work and decide for him/herself.

Which part of this quote from Koonin supports your point of view?: (my bold for emphasis)

The question remains open whether evolution of life in its entirety is best depicted as:(i) a consensus tree of highly conserved genes that represents a ‘central trend’ in evolution, with HGT events, including massive ones associated with endosymbiosis, comprising horizontal connections between the tree branches [Figure 1A; (150)], or(ii) a complex network where phases of tree-like evolution (with horizontal connections) are interspersed with ‘Big Bang’ phases of rampant horizontal exchange of genetic information that cannot be represented as trees in principle [Figure 1B; (151)].

troy:So a global search-and-replace of creationist -> ID proponent is not evidence that ID is a warmed-up version of creationism?

So Darwin's inclusion of "Creator" means that the theory of evolution is a Creationist theory.

Also "Of Panda's and people" has no bearing on ID- it has been superseded by "The Design of Life".

And for ID being different than Creation:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

"The logic of intelligent design tells us that it is not the same as creationism. Many proponents of intelligent design are not creationists. And more and more creationists are distancing themselves from intelligent design. Nevertheless, most critics of ID insist on equating intelligent design with creationism. While I am sure there are many critics who are sincere (although misinformed) when equating intelligent design with creationism, nevertheless, the accusation has many of the hallmarks of propaganda.

IOW when all else fails and to hide the fact that evolutionitwits cannot support their position, they have to lie.

It remains an open and intriguing question to what extent the BBB model applies to other transitions in biological evolution beyond those discussed above, e.g., the emergence of animal phyla during (or before) the Cambrian explosion, and what would be the mechanisms underpinning the inflationary phase for these transitions. It seems tempting and potentially fruitful to examine such stages of evolution for possible mechanisms of genetic exchange to account for an inflationary phase; invasions of mobile elements (including viruses) could be one such mechanism. Additionally or alternatively, rewiring of the kernels of regulatory networks that is thought to underlie the divergence of animal phyla [112,113] could be a qualitatively distinct evolutionary force triggering a BBB. More generally, understanding the inflationary phases and the exact processes occurring during BBBs emerges as a major goal of evolutionary biology.

My point about the Darwinists on this blog blatantly disregard the reality about recent studies into the efficacy of Darwinian processes to explain biological realities.

"For one Michael Denton- he refutes the concept [of nested hierarchy] in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"."

That's it? Some retired biochemist's non-peer reviewed book? How about some citations of professional biologists from the peer-reviewed literature? Just a handful of papers denying that evolution predicts nested hierarchy, and we have a basis for discussion.

"So Darwin's inclusion of "Creator" means that the theory of evolution is a Creationist theory.

Also "Of Panda's and people" has no bearing on ID- it has been superseded by "The Design of Life"."

Darwin allowed for the possibility that a Creator made the first life. He didn't search and replace "creation" with "evolution", did he? Yet the frauds who wrote OP&P did just that. They simply replaced "creationists" with "ID proponents" for political reasons - not scientific reasons - in an attempt to legally peddle their crap.

"Is this the way you would admit that you and Thorton misrepresented Koonin to suite your preference?

Koonin's BBB is as unsupportive of Darvinian views of the TOL as is the article that I quoted."

You misrepresented Koonin, not me or Thorton

I have no problem whatsoever accepting that some parts of the tree are more network-like, due to HGT, than previously thought. You seem to think that this somehow undermines "Darwinism", the view that natural selection played a major role in the evolutionary process. But it doesn't. Genes that can spread horizontally have an obvious selective advantage compared to genes that can't, all else being equal. Yet such genes can also be detrimental to individuals that harbor such genes. The current view is that opposing selection forces at the gene level and the individual level have led to the disappearance of HGT. That also explains why mitochondria are only transmitted via the female line.

I first proof to you that Koonin never implied HGT to be isolated to the base of the phylogenetic tree. Something you and Thorton blatantly lied about his work and now you compound it by forcing more of your preferred dogma into interpreting Koonin's work.

I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking.

"I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking. "

Haha. As if you had been "arguing" in the first place. You did nothing of the kind. Instead you quote-mined Koonin, while demonstrating your ignorance by conflating the "tree of life" with "Darwinian thinking". You're just another lying creationist, dime a dozen. Bye now.

I first proof to you that Koonin never implied HGT to be isolated to the base of the phylogenetic tree. Something you and Thorton blatantly lied about his work and now you compound it by forcing more of your preferred dogma into interpreting Koonin's work.

I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking.

LOL! Besides being a quote-mining liar, you never even bothered to read the whole Koonin article, did you?

How about this part?

"Koonin: The high prevalence of HGT in prokaryotes might, in part, explain the persistence of the organization of many operons across broad ranges of organisms, under the selfish operon hypothesis. Although the operons might be initially selected for the beneficial coexpression and coregulation of functionally linked genes, it is likely that they are maintained and disseminated in the prokaryotic world owing to the increased likelihood of fixation of an operon following HGT, compared, e.g. to a non-operonic pair of genes. This scenario presents a notable case of a combination of selective (coregulation) and neutral (HGT) forces contributing to the evolution of a major aspect of genome organization.

Eukaryotes are different from prokaryotes with respect to the role played by HGT in genome evolution. In multicellular eukaryotes, where germline cells are distinct from the soma, HGT appears to be rare although not impossible"

Gee, how about that! Koonin was mainly talking about HGT in prokaryotes, i.e. the roots of the TOL being a bush, not the main branches.

Maybe next time you'll read the article first before blindly C&Ping a dishonest quote-mined version. But given your lack of integrity I doubt it.

Gee, I have yet to meet a knowledgeable and honest creationist. We even have lying pastors on this thread. Here's a question for the creationists: is it OK to lie in order to save souls for Jesus? In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?

Here's one reason why I think Christianity (well, at least some flavors of it) is detrimental to morality: whatever you do, no matter how horrible your sins (with the possible exception of insulting the holy spirit) the Lord will forgive your sins and you will have a place in heaven. Isn't that the very reason why a sadistic Roman emperor promoted the superstition to official creed? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

"In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?"

Give me an example of a lie that would 'save' someone?(i dont believe that concept as most do) I cant think of any.

"whatever you do, no matter how horrible your sins (with the possible exception of insulting the holy spirit) the Lord will forgive your sins and you will have a place in heaven."

Asking forgiveness is insufficient. Sincere repentance along with a determination never to repeat that wrong(or others) and turn to doing good is the requirement.(I dont believe all go to heaven either)

ie. If you punch me then say you are sorry and I forgive you, then you punch me again will I continue to be a sucker and take the strength of your words over what your actions show? How naive would that be. The same applies to forgiveness by him.

Let me say I do agree with you that most Christian religions are fundamentally flawed. They speak good things (some times) but quite often their actions belie their words.

"Too bad judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher defend the book during the trial.

Is that how your side does it? By not letting people defend themselves so you can just make up any story you want? "

The correct spelling is judge Jones.

One of the contributors to the book, a Dr William Dembski, was given the opportunity to testify under oath, but he preferred not to show up (but, inexplicably, he did take the monetary compensation). Hey, here's an idea: why don't you show up in the next trial as an expert witness? You are a well-known ID spokesman after all. But don't forget to memorize the titles of the evolution textbooks you read at Uni.

"In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?"

Give me an example of a lie that would 'save' someone?(i dont believe that concept as most do) I cant think of any.

Telling a teenager who is still unsure about his gender identity that gay sex causes AIDS to try and 'scare' him straight. I've seen that lie propagated by Christians trying to save 'sinners' for years.

"Telling a teenager who is still unsure about his gender identity that gay sex causes AIDS to try and 'scare' him straight. I've seen that lie propagated by Christians trying to save 'sinners' for years. "

I would agree that lying in that way is still wrong regardless of the motive. Parents may try to convince their child to obey God and remain straight but that example is meant to scare the child into doing what the Bible says. Ultimately, it's each individuals choice, but it should be an informed choice based on truth not on lies. While the bible condemns practicing homosexuality it does not do it on the basis of health.

While at the start it may have been mostly homosexuals that suffered from AIDS I know that is nowhere near the case now. Anyone who practices ANY form of unsafe sex is at risk. Doing drugs while sharing needles can do it. Blood transfusions still are not perfectly safe with regard to that either.

That being said IF a couple are in a monagamous relationship, do not take drugs and/or blood then their chance of getting AIDS is virtually eliminated.

"The Creation Museum comes to mind as industrial-scale lying, intended to "save" the visitors' souls for Jesus et al. "

While I think Thorntons example is more appropriate I didn't even know that museum existed. If it teaches things exactly as the Bible does then it does not classify as a lie. It classifies as historical information. Do they actually claim to try to 'save souls' with it?

"While I think Thorntons example is more appropriate I didn't even know that museum existed. If it teaches things exactly as the Bible does then it does not classify as a lie. It classifies as historical information. Do they actually claim to try to 'save souls' with it?"

Just Google Ken Ham and/or Creation Museum to see for yourself. One example: they show humans and dinosaurs living together in harmony. There might even be a dino with a saddle but I'm not sure.

No matter how desperately you try to spin it, several of ID's leading, um, lights (Behe, Dembski et al.) were involved with several editions of a book where numerous times "creationist" was replaced by "ID proponent" without significant contextual changes. Your heroes are frauds.

"The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct, Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal."